Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Creation Science" experiments.
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 48 of 396 (580604)
09-10-2010 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Dr Adequate
09-10-2010 7:56 AM


Re: What's a creation experiment exactly?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg_9RIBDUU8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjJa57htqcI
Edited by frako, : No reason given.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-10-2010 7:56 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 64 of 396 (580694)
09-10-2010 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Taq
09-10-2010 5:45 PM


Re: Assumptions
"So if I started with the axiom that there was a recent global flood what evidence could this axiom not accomodate?"
for there to ba a global flood there there would be evidence like
a very thin layr of sediments and thin layr of plant rot or fossilazation underneath it
erosion visable and showing how fast the flood resided
geneticale evidence of a species bottleneck similar to what we sea in lions
a thin layr of salt deposits stretching all arround the world
your theory of a flood would have to explain why there is no such evidence and more. you cant go and say well this place looks like it was flooded at one time this proves there was a world wide flood. for a hypothesis to become a reliable theory it has to explain all the facts that are availble

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Taq, posted 09-10-2010 5:45 PM Taq has not replied

frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 187 of 396 (582067)
09-19-2010 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by jar
09-18-2010 2:56 PM


how about a suggestion of a "Creation Science" experiment?
i know of one and we know god can do it cause it says so in the bible when 2 altars where placed one for some other god an one for the god of the bible where the other god could not light his own offering on fire and the god of the bible burned the whole altar
same 2 altars the atheists use science (anything from rubbing 2 sticks together to a laser that runs on nuclear power) and the theists pray to god the one who gets their altar to light up first wins and the theists get a head start of one hour

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by jar, posted 09-18-2010 2:56 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by jar, posted 09-19-2010 4:04 PM frako has not replied

frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 192 of 396 (582403)
09-21-2010 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Just being real
09-21-2010 5:24 AM


why not live this moment insted of worrying about a un plausible afterlife

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Just being real, posted 09-21-2010 5:24 AM Just being real has not replied

frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 237 of 396 (583484)
09-27-2010 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Just being real
09-26-2010 11:37 AM


Re: Not so nice a subtitle
Again, that depends on how you are going to define science. If you define it in a way that excludes ID as an explanation from the beginning... well then I guess according to you... not.
ok this is how the scientific method works and has worked for well some say over 1000 years and it is the core of what science is.
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.[13]
or
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
i got this from Wikipedia
Scientific method - Wikipedia
read the article there follow the steps form a hypothesis show us the data then we can talk about creation being plausible oh and your hypothesis cannot contradict any known fact
moste of you creationist have problems whit step 4 (Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.[13])
read about it here
Affirming the consequent - Wikipedia
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Just being real, posted 09-26-2010 11:37 AM Just being real has not replied

frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 250 of 396 (583631)
09-28-2010 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by Just being real
09-28-2010 5:26 AM


Re: Not so nice a subtitle
So If I present an ID experiment that follows all of the above steps, am I to understand that we will accept it as "science?"
present a hypothesis use it to predict phenomena test it, try to "poke some holes" in it if you cant poke any holes in it present it here then we can give it a try if we cant find holes in it then publish it let some scientist have a shot at it and if it stands you will have a viable scientific theory and you will be able to call it science
un disprovable theories though always fall trough if there is a more rational explanation do to the occam's razor
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Just being real, posted 09-28-2010 5:26 AM Just being real has not replied

frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 262 of 396 (583817)
09-29-2010 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Just being real
09-28-2010 10:46 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
well what we know is that parts for the dna and rna molecules can be formed by natural causes, so it is not a big step to go to that these parts can combine to form dna and rna by some natural process although i think this question can and will be anwserd in a few years do to advancment in genetics.
p.s. synthetic life has already been made the only question left if if it could have been made naturally if i where a betting man i would say yes, though if science proves whit out a doubt that it could have not formed naturaly be it to the lack of materials, lack of conditions availible naturally then we will have to go to the quote of sherloc holms: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth, but so far given the knowledge at hand and do to occams razor it is far more probable that life spawned on its own

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Just being real, posted 09-28-2010 10:46 PM Just being real has not replied

frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 268 of 396 (583831)
09-29-2010 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Just being real
09-29-2010 7:17 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
Likewise single celled organisms perform repeating processes of communicating highly complex and particularized information, but there is no evidence that suggests this process could have initiated without the aid of intelligence.
well evolution is
it needs no intelligence to produce wonderus resoults all it needs is time and inacurate ofspring copies

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 7:17 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Just being real, posted 09-29-2010 12:58 PM frako has not replied

frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 292 of 396 (584149)
09-30-2010 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by NoNukes
09-30-2010 3:46 PM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
no when you observe apc you see how evolution can make things that look designed

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by NoNukes, posted 09-30-2010 3:46 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 299 of 396 (584490)
10-02-2010 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Just being real
10-02-2010 4:44 AM


Re: How Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory
The technology, dubbed Embedded and Communicating Agents, has allowed researchers at Sony’s Computer Science Laboratory in France, for example, to add a new level of intelligence to the AIBO dog. Instead of teaching the dog new tricks, the algorithms, design principles and mechanisms developed by the project allow the robotic pet to learn new tricks itself and share its knowledge with others.
What has been achieved at Sony shows that the technology gives the robot the ability to develop its own language with which to describe its environment and interact with other AIBOs — it sees a ball and it can tell another one where the ball is, if it’s moving and what colour it is, and the other is capable of recognising it, Nolfi says.
The most important aspect, however, is how it learns to communicate and interact. Whereas we humans use the word ‘ball’ to refer to a ball, the AIBO dogs start from scratch to develop common agreement on a word to use to refer the ball. They also develop the language structures to express, for instance, that the ball is rolling to the left. This, the researchers achieved through instilling their robots with a sense of ‘curiosity.’
from http://www.physorg.com/news70202621.html
they are robots but they where not programed to communicate this way they where programed to learn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Just being real, posted 10-02-2010 4:44 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Just being real, posted 10-04-2010 12:47 PM frako has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024